So Cross the Ripper got involved in the investigation. Why did he stop?

[Pcdunn]

I can't help thinking that being a ripperologist is a good deal like being a religious scholar, when it comes to debating what the texts "mean" and how we should interpret them.

The lost documents haven't helped at all-- nor the occasional hoaxed journal or photograph.

All these arguments are just differences of interpretation, Columbo. (I hear they're less combative at JTR Forums.)

[Columbo]

Your seem rather "jealous", Harry. Proceed with caution here. Mr. Eloquence has warned us not to "mess" with him, lest we face a verbal assault not seen since Steve Martin's tirade at the rental car counter in "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles".

I find it interesting that you didn't answer my question. you went right on the attack like everyone expected.

Too bad, you seem like a smart guy but the anger is just overwhelming in you.

Columbo

[Pcdunn]

I liked Patrick's summary, and agree with it.

As for why Lechmere "the Killer" didn't help out the police again-- he was far too brilliant (despite being "a coarse carman" per one of the police observers) to chance it?
Or he was innocent.

[Columbo]

You seem awfully tetchy when it comes to defending the Lechmere theory for someone who's only been here a month. You sure you don't have a dog in this fight?

Tetchy, I like that.

None at all. I don't agree with everything Fisherman has said and except for a few instances that I was drawn into where it got nasty, I usually stay out of the usual battle of wits that normally ends these threads.

I was just wanting more information on this theory after seeing the "evil" documentary about Lechmere\Cross. But it's like pulling teeth because every time anyone asks a question where Fisherman responded the whole community goes up in arms and begins bringing up arguments that have no bearing on the thread and the answers get lost in a sea of snide remarks and overlong posts that aren't really fun to read.

And to top it off only a few of you have been polite enough to try to answer questions while the rest try to show who has the biggest walnuts on the block. There are other newcomers who shouldn't have to be drawn into a p**sing contest.

Debate is a wonderful thing but every thread does not require re-hashing or carrying over an argument from a previous thread.

I want to say you've been pretty polite to me and except for a bit of back and forth I've always enjoyed the info you provided as well as others who have given me a hard time but I'm a big guy I can take it.

Columbo

[Errata]

Your seem rather "jealous", Harry. Proceed with caution here. Mr. Eloquence has warned us not to "mess" with him, lest we face a verbal assault not seen since Steve Martin's tirade at the rental car counter in "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles".

I have no dog in this fight, on the other hand, anyone who references that scene in Planes Trains and Automobiles is clearly a winner.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Patrick S,

You have ably demonstrated that the horse Christer has been flogging is now dead.

Regards,

Simon

[Patrick S]

You seem awfully tetchy when it comes to defending the Lechmere theory for someone who's only been here a month. You sure you don't have a dog in this fight?

Your seem rather "jealous", Harry. Proceed with caution here. Mr. Eloquence has warned us not to "mess" with him, lest we face a verbal assault not seen since Steve Martin's tirade at the rental car counter in "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles".

[Harry D]

It certainly wasn't short, and it doesn't close anything. Just more long winded blathering that has been repeated over and over.

Columbo

You seem awfully tetchy when it comes to defending the Lechmere theory for someone who's only been here a month. You sure you don't have a dog in this fight?

[Patrick S]

It certainly wasn't short, and it doesn't close anything. Just more long winded blathering that has been repeated over and over.

Columbo

Some may have found it short (and sweet). Other likely found it long "winded blathering". How you perceive the written word is doubtlessly determined by your attention span, reading comprehension skills, and your overall ability to process information. Simon found it short. You did not find it short.....à chacun son proper.

[Columbo]

Nicely done. Short and sweet.

CASE CLOSED.

Regards,

Simon

It certainly wasn't short, and it doesn't close anything. Just more long winded blathering that has been repeated over and over.

Columbo

[Columbo]

All of the insults, and condescending lectures in the world can't give credence to this nonsense. It's only the sheer absurdity of it all that keeps us coming back, arguing, going blue in the face. One of "Fisherman's" fanboys (who contributes nothing to these board, thus he doesn't deserve to be named, much less engaged) keeps accusing those who disagree of being "jealous", as if we are all as juvenile as he is.

Yep, I guess I'm the fanboy.

Has it ever occurred to all the people who create these incredibly long, sometimes concise, but normally snotty and rude posts is that none of you answer the question posted by the thread?

It always winds up being a debate of the whole theory, instead of providing the bits of information that the creator of the thread desired.

The only time that didn't happen is when I asked about Lechemeres wife and I think that was because it was so precise a question that only a few could answer.

So, yeah I've seen a lot of jealousy and animosity against not only this theory but the man who came up with it. Also against people like myself who are basically neutral on the whole JTR thing to begin with, but we stupidly respond back to the childish posts and sink to levels we wouldn't do if we were meeting in person.

Can any of the long winded dissenters cite any post where they just answered the question of this post without being rude and obnoxious?

I doubt it.

Columbo

[Simon Wood]

Hi Patrick S,

Nicely done. Short and sweet.

CASE CLOSED.

Regards,

Simon

[miss marple]

Brilliant post, Patrick. SPOT ON

Miss Marple

[Harry D]

Once again, when all of the conjecture, supposition, and invention is put aside, we are left with nothing save the fact that Charles Cross was born as Charles Lechmere and was known - legally - by that name. That's it. There is nothing else.

Fisherman and his acolytes toss out words like "evidence", where there is none. "Blood Evidence"? Adjectives that appeared in newspapers 128 years ago. "The Mizen Scam"? It defies simple logic and assigns sinister intent to one man (Lechmere) while ignoring a reasonable, albeit rather innocuous, non-homicidal motive for bending the truth on the part of another (Mizen). Oh, and we must invent a completely fabricated backstory for another man (Paul) due to the fact that he corroborates the testimony that doesn't serve the theory (Lechmere's).

AH. But let's look beyond Buck's Row. Let's look beyond the inquest. Aside from this "false" name issue (ignoring the fact that Lechmere didn't - in fact - give a FALSE name), we see nothing suspicious in his behavior in Buck's Row. Unlike Mizen, his testimony is corroborated by another witness. But still, perhaps he pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, for more than a century.

Let's look deeper. Let's look at the man. Let's look for those clues that tell us of his desire to kill, his malignancy, his dyspeptic personality, his ill-humor, his life in disarray due to his lifelong avocation as serial killer! What do we see?

Arrests? As "Fisherman" himself admits, there is no record of that.

Psychological problems? No record of that.

Did his life as Jack the Ripper and the 'Torso Killer' impact his ability to hold down a job? Apparently not. 20+ years at Pickfords.

Did his wife suspect him? How could she stay with such a monster? We don't know the answer to former question. But we know that she stayed with him. For fifty years. Until his dying day.

He must have had some sexual deformity or disfunction, something that drove his desire to kill women? He had 11 children.

Upon his retirement he was free to kill! No more work to report to! No more hours spent working when he could be stalking his prey and KILLING? He opened a shop.

He secretly hated his wife? He left her a nice sum upon his death, having worked his entire adult life, bettering his wife's and his children's lives as a result.

His wife must have been relieved he died. She likely took up with another man upon his death? She never remarried.

His kids must have been a mess with a serial killer for a father? No. Not at all. They grew into law abiding, professional people.

NONE of these things - on it's own - means anything at all. I'm sure that many are ready to respond with examples of married serial killers, murderers with kids, jobs, etc. That's not the point. The point is there is NOTHING here. Nothing at all. No motive or reason for this man to kill. No evidence he killed. No suspicious behavior, no apparent consciousness of guilt. He stayed when human nature tells everyone else to run. He showed up at the inquest, unnamed, uncompelled. He went back to his life afterward. We don't hear from him again. He goes back to his life. The normal, I'd say admirable life described above.

All of the insults, and condescending lectures in the world can't give credence to this nonsense. It's only the sheer absurdity of it all that keeps us coming back, arguing, going blue in the face. One of "Fisherman's" fanboys (who contributes nothing to these board, thus he doesn't deserve to be named, much less engaged) keeps accusing those who disagree of being "jealous", as if we are all as juvenile as he is. I think most of us continue to stamp our feet and write treatises of indignation because we don't want this foolishness to influence those who know less than we do. We don't want his to be an accepted "solution" to the identity of Jack the Ripper. We don't want to hear someone on the street say, "Oh! They solved that! It was some guy named Lechmere, right?" It was the same with Sickert. Same with the Royal Conspiracy, and all the others.

Well summarised, Patrick, and the perfect note on which to end this debate, but what are the chances of that?

[Patrick S]

Once again, when all of the conjecture, supposition, and invention is put aside, we are left with nothing save the fact that Charles Cross was born as Charles Lechmere and was known - legally - by that name. That's it. There is nothing else.

Fisherman and his acolytes toss out words like "evidence", where there is none. "Blood Evidence"? Adjectives that appeared in newspapers 128 years ago. "The Mizen Scam"? It defies simple logic and assigns sinister intent to one man (Lechmere) while ignoring a reasonable, albeit rather innocuous, non-homicidal motive for bending the truth on the part of another (Mizen). Oh, and we must invent a completely fabricated backstory for another man (Paul) due to the fact that he corroborates the testimony that doesn't serve the theory (Lechmere's).

AH. But let's look beyond Buck's Row. Let's look beyond the inquest. Aside from this "false" name issue (ignoring the fact that Lechmere didn't - in fact - give a FALSE name), we see nothing suspicious in his behavior in Buck's Row. Unlike Mizen, his testimony is corroborated by another witness. But still, perhaps he pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, for more than a century.

Let's look deeper. Let's look at the man. Let's look for those clues that tell us of his desire to kill, his malignancy, his dyspeptic personality, his ill-humor, his life in disarray due to his lifelong avocation as serial killer! What do we see?

Arrests? As "Fisherman" himself admits, there is no record of that.

Psychological problems? No record of that.

Did his life as Jack the Ripper and the 'Torso Killer' impact his ability to hold down a job? Apparently not. 20+ years at Pickfords.

Did his wife suspect him? How could she stay with such a monster? We don't know the answer to former question. But we know that she stayed with him. For fifty years. Until his dying day.

He must have had some sexual deformity or disfunction, something that drove his desire to kill women? He had 11 children.

Upon his retirement he was free to kill! No more work to report to! No more hours spent working when he could be stalking his prey and KILLING? He opened a shop.

He secretly hated his wife? He left her a nice sum upon his death, having worked his entire adult life, bettering his wife's and his children's lives as a result.

His wife must have been relieved he died. She likely took up with another man upon his death? She never remarried.

His kids must have been a mess with a serial killer for a father? No. Not at all. They grew into law abiding, professional people.

NONE of these things - on it's own - means anything at all. I'm sure that many are ready to respond with examples of married serial killers, murderers with kids, jobs, etc. That's not the point. The point is there is NOTHING here. Nothing at all. No motive or reason for this man to kill. No evidence he killed. No suspicious behavior, no apparent consciousness of guilt. He stayed when human nature tells everyone else to run. He showed up at the inquest, unnamed, uncompelled. He went back to his life afterward. We don't hear from him again. He goes back to his life. The normal, I'd say admirable life described above.

All of the insults, and condescending lectures in the world can't give credence to this nonsense. It's only the sheer absurdity of it all that keeps us coming back, arguing, going blue in the face. One of "Fisherman's" fanboys (who contributes nothing to these board, thus he doesn't deserve to be named, much less engaged) keeps accusing those who disagree of being "jealous", as if we are all as juvenile as he is. I think most of us continue to stamp our feet and write treatises of indignation because we don't want this foolishness to influence those who know less than we do. We don't want his to be an accepted "solution" to the identity of Jack the Ripper. We don't want to hear someone on the street say, "Oh! They solved that! It was some guy named Lechmere, right?" It was the same with Sickert. Same with the Royal Conspiracy, and all the others.